Comments on: FDL Book Salon Welcomes Jared Bernstein: ‘Crunch’

By: Knut

Knut — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:30:09 +0000

I am writing this comment down here in EPU-land because I want at least to get it in the open where at least someone will see it. Jared mentioned Rational Expectations in a post higher up this thread. Rational Expectations or RE as it is known in the econ jargon takes the notion that the market knows best to its extreme point, which is that it never makes systematic mistakes in its predictions. No point in going through the argument here, but I would like to point out that there has been nary a peep out of the several Nobel Laureats from Chicago and Minnesota who gave birth to the monstrous doctrines of Rational Expectations and the Real Business Cycle concerning the current breakdown in financial markets, which has been going on now for more than a year.

Nothing to see here folks, move along. Seems to be the new Chicago Doctrine.

By: kala

kala — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:10:46 +0000

i know my unemployment isn’t part of any number collected … and i’m certain i’m not alone in that respect.

itunkala

By: selise

selise — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:43:12 +0000

The median male wage, inflation-adjusted, is about the same now as it was in 1973!

i’ve wondered if this doesn’t partially explain some of the subconscious resistance we’ve seen to feminism in general and women’s full and equal participation at work in particular.

By: Tula Connell

Tula Connell — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:43:05 +0000

Thanks to everyone for a very well informed Salon.

It’s always great to be part of the discussion around Jared’s great book!

By: Scarecrow

Scarecrow — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:41:54 +0000

Thanks, Jared. We’d love to have you.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:41:17 +0000

Here is my entry on job creation from my scandals list:

298. Bush job creation. Looking at Bureau of Labor Statistics seasonally adjusted numbers for nonfarm jobs (defined as those not involving farm work, general government, private households, or nonprofit organizations serving individuals), in its first 7 1/2 years (from January 2001 to June 2008 (est.)), the Bush Administration created 5,171,000 jobs or 57,450/month. 150,000 to 200,000 per month would be expected to accompany an economic expansion. During this same period, the economy lost 3,577,000 manufacturing jobs. These are the jobs that traditionally have had good wages and benefits and now account for only about 13.5 million of the nation’s 137.6 million nonfarm jobs (or less than 10% of them).
By contrast in the 8 years of the Clinton Administration (from January 1993 to December 2000), 22,760,000 nonfarm jobs were created or ~237,000/month (more than 4 times the Bush rate). At the same time, manufacturing jobs showed a modest increase of 387,000. Despite his protestations to the contrary, these numbers paint a dismal picture of job growth during the Bush years.

I should point out that the August projection numbers knock Bush’s numbers down to 5.004 million (the numbers could go even lower once they firm up). This is a job creation rate 22% that of Clinton’s. And then there is the question of the quality of these jobs.

By: nahant

nahant — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:38:03 +0000

Can’t argue with that as with the recent SCOTUS ruling RE Ledbetter case. So I guess maybe the best solution is for laws forcing business to pay living wages?? Or for ALL workers to be in Unions so business MUST negotiate on wages. One of the underlying factors in the decline of wages is the busting of union since Ronnie RayGun days and the shipping of jobs overseas and the business getting a tax break for doing so. I have never understood those kind of tax incentives??? I would think there should be tax penalties for shipping a job overseas as it puts American workers out of a job, forcing them onto public funding ie unemployment, food stamps, welfare and forcing the workers to have to use emergency rooms for the medical care they need! I am sure the costs to society are indeed enormous because of these trends by big business. And 60%+ pay no Federal income taxes, yes there is the pass through taxes but on at the 15% rate for dividens, seems inherently stupid of having such a system.

By: dakine01

dakine01 — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:35:49 +0000

Scarecrow upstairs “You Get To Pay Off Wall Street Losses”

By: Teddy Partridge

Teddy Partridge — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:35:12 +0000

We are pretty much always open.

Thanks so much for this great discussion. I can’t recommend your book highly enough. It really makes economics, as it affects Americans, accessible in a way nothing I’ve read does. You are a gifted writer.

Thanks again!

By: siri

siri — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:35:11 +0000

I don’t think Progressives are WILLING to go for this, we can hardly afford meds and food at the same time as it is. One more hit to this household will pretty much put us under.

So other than scream loudly at Congress, and WE ALL KNOW how much that does (Iraq, MCA, PPA, FISA), what would you suggest we do about it. I don’t hear the din of those in WashDC asking us!

Thank you for the book and Tula, GREAT intro, thank you!